Wessington Springs herald. (Wessington Springs, Aurora County, Dakota [S.D.]) 1883-1891, 1887-12-30
tics OF citizens of the United States, nor shall
any State deprive any person Of life liberty. or

tics OF citizens of the United States, nor sha1
any State deprive any person OF life, liberty, Q
property without due process ct law
THAT legislation by a State prohibiting tn
manufacture within her lisnits Of intoxicatin
liquors, to be there sold or bnrtered for genera
use as n beverage, does not necessarily infring
any right, privilege, or immunity secured by tn
Constitution Of the United States is made clea
| by the decisions OF this court rendered hefor
and since the adoption OF the fourteenth amend
ment In the license cases Is How. 5ON tn
question was whether certain statutes OF Mas
sachusetts, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire
relating to the sale of spirituous liquors within
| their respective limits were repugnant to tn
Constitution of the United States.
NO CONFLICT WITH THE FEDERAL CoSSTITu
I'm determining that question it becom
necessary to inquire whether there was an.
conflict between the exercise by Congress OF it
power to regulate commerce with foreign coun
tries among the several States and the exercis,
by States of what are called police powers
Although the members of the court did mo-
decision should be based they were unani
nous in holding that the statutes then under
examination were not inconsistent with the
Constitution of the United states or with any
act of Congress. Chief Justice fancy said:
IT any State deems the retail and internal
traffic in ardent spirits injurious to its citizens
and calculated to produce dlesness. vice. or de
| banchery, see nothing in the Constitution OF
the United States to prevent it from regulating
and the traffic Or from prohibiting
Justice Grier, in still more emphatic Ian
suage sud
| and one which am not disposed to evade, is
| whether the States have Il right to prohibit the
\ snle and consumption of an article of commerce
| fects and the cause of disease. pauDersm, and
! crime. Without attempting to define what are
| the peculiar subjects or limits of this power it
may sufely be affirmed that every law for the
restraint or punishment of crime, for the pres
ervation of the public peace. heulth, and NOR
ais must come within this category.
1T is not necessary, for the sake of justify
ing the State legislation now under considera-
ton, to array the appalling statistics of mis-
cry, pauporslu, and crime which have their or
| igin in the use or abuse of ardent spirits. The
police power, which is exclusively in the
| States, is nlone competent to the correction of
these great evils and all measures of restraint
| or prohibition necessary to effect the purpose
| are within the scope of That authority.
| Mr.. Justice Woodbury. observed;
How, can they the statesi be sovereign
within their respective sphere without power
| to regulate all their internal commerce. as we'll
| as police, and direct how, when, and whore it
shall be conducted in articles intimately con
| nected either with public morals or the pu bic
| safety or public prosperity?
Mr.. Justice Mclean, among other things,
ga State regulates it's domestic commerce,
contracts, the transmission of estates, real and
personal, and acts upon internal matters which
relate to its moral and political welfare. Over
these subjects the Federal Government has no
power. The acknowledged police power of IL
State extends often to the destruction of prop
erty. A nuisance may be abated. Everything
rreiudicial to the health OF morals of city may
be removed
OTHER AUTHORITIES.
In Baitemeyer VS.. Iowa Us WALL, 129) it was
said that prior to the adoption OF the fourteenth
amendment State enuctmonts regulating OF
prohibiting the traffic in Intoxicating liquors
raised no question under the Constitution of the
United States and that such legislation was left
to the discretion of the respective States subject
to no other limitations thnn those imposed by
their own constitution or by the general princi-
,r1n
referring TO the contention that the right to
sell Intoxicating liquors WAS secured by the
fourteenth Amendment, the court said that,
$50 far as such q right existed it is not one OF
the rights growing out of citizenship of the
United States III Beer Company VS.. Mussa.
chusetts t97 Y: s., 33i it was said that as
preservation of public morals. State law pro-
hibitinG the manufacture and sale OF intoXicn-
ting liquors is not repugnnnt to any clause of
the Constitution of the United States.
FINALLY, Foster VS.. kanns ul2 U. s., 206l, the
court said that the question Us to the consttu-
tional power of @ State to prohibit the manu-
longer OH open one in this court. These cases
rest upon the acknowledged right OF the several
States of the Union to control their purely in
ternal affairs, and i'll SO doing to protect tho
health morals and safety of their people by
| regulations that do not interfere with the exc
cution OF the powers of the General Government
the United States. The power to establish such
regulations as said in Gibbons VS.. Ogden
g Wheat. 2O3, reached everything within the
| tional Government.
CLAIM THE RIGHT TO MANUFACTURE.
1T is, however. contended that. although the
| State may prohibit the manufacture of intoXi-
| eating liquors for sale or barter within her
| limits for general use us IL beverage, no conyen-
ton or Legislature has the right under our
| form OF government, to prohibit any citizen
from manufacturing for his own use or for OK
port or storage any article of food Or drink not
endangering or affecting the rights of others
/ m nI nj 1n Sp.Sf
branch of this proposition, briefly stated, is
THAT in the implied compact between the
State and the citizen certain rights are reserved
| by the latter which are guaranteed by the con
stitutional provisions for the protection of life
liberty. and property, against deprivation with
| out due process of law, and with which the
| State cannot interfere; that among those rights
4 is that of manufacturing food drink; that
while, according to the doctrines of the COM
tite dress, food, and drink of the citizen, ou1
| system of government, based upon the indi-
viduality and intelligence of the people, does
not claim to control him, except us to his con-
duct to others, leaving him the sole Judge as to
| all that only affects himself.
SOCIETY MAY PROTECT ITSELF.
| 1T will be observed that the proposition and
the argument made in support of it equally
| concede that the right to manufacture drink
for personal use is subject to the condition that
| such manufacture does not endanger or affect
| the rights of others. If such manufacture does
prejudicially affect the rights and interests OF
the community. it follows from the very prem
/
| power to protect itself by legislation against
the injurious consequences of that business
AS was said i'll MUM Vs. Illinois ga U. S., 124J
| While power does not exist with the whole peo-
pie to control rights that are purely and ex.
| clusively private, the Government may require
| each citizen to SO conduct himself and so use
his own property us not unnecessarily to njure
| another
But by whom or by what authority is it to be
determined whether the manufacture of par
ticular articles of drink, either for general use
or for the personal use of the maker, will i'll.
| juriously affect the public? Power to determine
such questions SO as to bind all must exist
somewhere, else society will be ut the mercy
of the few who regarding only their own appe
| tite or pas sion, may be willing to inperil the
peace and security of the many, provided only
they are permitted to do as they please. I'm
| der our system that power is lodged with the
\ legislative branch of the Government. 1t be
| longs to that department to exert what are
| known as the police powers of the departing Mt
| 1t must determine primarily what measures
| are appropriate or needful for the protection o.
| the public morals, the public heuith, or the
| public safety.
LIMITS TO LEGISLATION.
| ut does not at all follow from these princi
| pies that every statute enacted ostensibly fol
| the promotion OF these ends is to be accepted
! as u Legitimate exertion of the police powers OF
/! the State. There are, of necessity, limits be
| yond which legislation cannot rghtfully go
AS the courts must obey the Constitution rather
| than the law-making department of Govern
| ment, it must, upon its responsibility. deter
mine whether i'll any particular these linn